Of all valvular heart lesions, aortic stenosis carries the worst prognosis. Within one year of diagnosis, half of patients with critical aortic stenosis have died, and by three years this figure rises to 80%. Currently, there is only one effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis—aortic valve replacement via open heart surgery. Unfortunately, this is a substantial and invasive undertaking for the patient.
While there have been significant advances in heart valve technology over the last thirty years, there has been little progress in the development of safer and less invasive valve delivery systems. Aortic valve replacement currently requires a sternotomy or thoracotomy, use of cardiopulmonary bypass to arrest the heart and lungs, and a large incision on the aorta. The native valve is resected through this incision and a prosthetic valve is sutured to the inner surface of the aorta with a multitude of sutures passing into the wall of the aorta. This procedure is accompanied by a 5% mortality rate, in addition to significant morbidity (stroke, bleeding, myocardial infarction, respiratory insufficiency, wound infection) related to the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and the approach to the aortic valve. Elderly patients and those who require concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting experience increased morbidity and mortality. All patients require 4 to 6 weeks to recover from the procedure.
Less invasive approaches to aortic valve surgery have followed two paths. In the Eighties, there was a flurry of interest in percutaneous balloon valvotomy. In this procedure, a cardiologist introduced catheters through the femoral artery to dilate the patient's aortic valve, thereby relieving the stenosis. Using the technology available at that time, success was limited. The valve area was increased only minimally, and nearly all patients had restenosis within one year. More recently, surgeons have approached the aortic valve via smaller chest wall incisions. These approaches still require cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiac arrest, which entail significant morbidity and a prolonged postoperative recovery.
A truly minimally invasive approach to the treatment of aortic valve disease requires aortic valve replacement without cardiopulmonary bypass. Such an approach  would reduce patient morbidity and mortality and hasten recovery. Although there has been great progress in the treatment of coronary artery disease without cardiopulmonary bypass (angioplasty/stenting and “off-pump” coronary artery bypass grafting), similar advances have not yet been realized in heart valve surgery. With an aging population and improved access to advanced diagnostic testing, the incidence of aortic stenosis will continue to increase. The development of a system for “off-pump” aortic valve replacement would be of tremendous benefit to this increasing patient population.
There are three significant challenges to replacing a diseased aortic valve without cardiopulmonary bypass. The first is to remove the valve without causing stroke or other ischemic events that might result from particulate material liberated while manipulating the valve. The second is to prevent cardiac failure during removal of the valve. The aortic valve serves an important function even when diseased. When the valve becomes acutely and severely incompetent during removal, the patient develops heart failure leading to death unless the function of the valve is taken over by another means. The third challenge is placing a prosthetic valve into the vascular system and affixing it to the wall of the aorta.
Temporary valves have been reported in the art, most notably by Boretos, et. al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,056,854 and Moulopoulos in U.S. Pat. No. 3,671,979. All temporary valves disclosed to date have been inserted into a vessel, advanced to a location distant from the insertion site and then expanded radially from the center of the vessel.
These designs have many disadvantages. First, they tend to occupy a significant length of the vessel when deployed. During a valve procedure, it may be advantageous to place the temporary valve in a vessel between two branches leading from that vessel. It may also be necessary to insert other tools through the vessel wall between those two branches. A temporary valve such as the ones disclosed in the art may leave very little room between the branches for insertion of these tools. The valves disclosed to date tend also to be rather flimsy and may have difficulty supporting the fluid pressures while the valve is closed. A more significant disadvantage of these valves is that they generally must be inserted into a vessel at a significant distance from the valve to allow adequate room for deployment. If some portions of the operation are performed through the chest wall, insertion of such a  temporary valve may require a separate incision distant from the chest cavity. This adds morbidity and complexity to the procedure. Another drawback of the prior art is that valves with three or fewer leaflets rely on the perfect performance of each of those leaflets. If one of the leaflets malfunctions, the valve fails to function adequately.
Throughout this disclosure the terms proximal and distal will be used to describe locations within the vascular anatomy. In the arterial system, proximal means toward the heart while distal means away from the heart. In the venous system, proximal means away from the heart while distal means toward the heart. In both the arterial and venous systems a distal point in a blood flowpath is downstream from a proximal point. The terms antegrade and retrograde flow are also used. In the arterial system, antegrade refers to flow away from the heart while retrograde refers to flow toward the heart. In the venous system, these terms are again reversed. Antegrade means toward the heart while retrograde means away from the heart.